Both Arthur B. Miller and Carolyn Miller point to Lloyd F. Bitzer as a basis from which to begin to define the concept of exigence. The former begins his piece “Rhetorical Exigence” with Bitzer’s definition: "Any exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be" (111). In this way, exigence marks a dilemma of some sort; this dilemma, by Bitzer’s explanation, is essential to rhetorical situation. Carolyn Miller explains in “Genre as Social Action,” that Bitzer defines "rhetorical situation as a 'complex of persons, events, objects, and relations' presenting an 'exigence' that can be allayed through the mediation of discourse" (152).
Presented this way, the concept of exigence becomes a critical element of the rhetorical situation. Arthur B. Miller continues to draw from Bitzer to elaborate further on the role exigence plays in the rhetorical situation. He quotes Bitzer as saying "in any rhetorical situation there will be at least one controlling exigence which functions as the organizing principle: it specifies the audience to be addressed and the change to be effected" (111). It is in this way that the concept of exigence is most often taken up in the field of rhetoric and composition. It is not merely any sense of urgency, but specifically the sort of urgency can be, and perhaps demands to be, negotiated through discourse.
Limitations and Exigence
Arthur B. Miller points out that Bitzer’s position regarding exigence is deterministic because in his conceptualization: “(1) an exigence exists or occurs in a point of time, and (2) the nature of the exigence limits what one may do or say about it” (111). With this framework, emphasis is placed upon the means in which rhetors are limited by the exigence in terms of determining the timeline in which they should respond to the exigence as well as the means in which they should respond based upon the nature of the exigence itself. In “Rhetorical Exigence,” Arthur B. Miller attempts to expand the agency of the rhetor by acknowledging the role he or she plays in aiding to the “ultimate or perceived nature of the exigence” based upon his or her position as “perceiver” of the exigence (112).
Exigence and Social Action
In the process of defining genre as “social action,” Carolyn Miller reconceptualizes exigence in a way that contrasts with Bitzer’s definition. To begin this process, she first addresses the contrasting approaches to rhetorical situation developed by Kenneth Burke and Bitzer. While both use the term “rhetorical situation” they construct the situation around differing terms. As Miller explains: “one crucial difference between the two is Burke’s use of motive and Bitzer’s of exigence as the focus of situation” (155). She explains that the use of these terms reflect emphasis being placed on “human action” in the case of Burke and “reaction” in the case of Bitzer. Her own definition of exigence fits more closely with Burke’s motive than Bitzer’s exigence, in part because she sees Bitzer’s “reaction” as being related only to “defect” and “danger.” Instead, she sees exigence as human action that is “located in the social world” (157).
She defines exigence as “a form of social knowledge--a mutual construing of objects, events, interests, and purposes that not only links them but also makes them what they are: an objectified social need” (157). While Bitzner and Arthur B. Miller had emphasized the the obstacle and the rhetor’s perception of the obstacle in their definition of exigence, Carolyn Miller shifts attention to the social elements surrounding this obstacle and perception. She summarizes her conception of it nicely by saying “exigence is a set of particular social patterns and expectations that provides a socially objectified motive for addressing danger, ignorance, separateness" (158).
Exigence vs. Exigency
The term "exigency" is often used as interchangeably with "exigence." In fact, on Comppile.org, a search for the keyword "exigence" will collect no results whereas one for "exigency" will produce multiple. It should be noted, however, that in the context of the conceptualization of exigence presented above, exigence may be the most appropriate use of the term. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the suffix "-ence" indicates "a sense of action or process, either in addition to, or to the exclusion of, that of quality or state" whereas "-ency" conveys "only the sense of quality or state" ("-ency, suffix."). The latter suffix implies a concrete fixed state, in many cases, while the former suffix allows for a more dynamic or evolving characterization of a term. This usage seems to fit more appropriately with the conception of exigence as temporal and socially constructed.
Keywords / Related Concepts
exigency, genre, limitations, rhetorical situation, social action
Sources
"-ency, suffix." OED Online. Oxford University Press. June 2011. Web. 31 July 2011.
Miller, Carolyn R. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (May 1984): 151-167.
Miller, Arthur B. "Rhetorical Exigence." Philosophy & Rhetoric 5.2 (Spring, 1972): 111-118.
A Basic Definition: A Look to Bitzer
Both Arthur B. Miller and Carolyn Miller point to Lloyd F. Bitzer as a basis from which to begin to define the concept of exigence. The former begins his piece “Rhetorical Exigence” with Bitzer’s definition: "Any exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be" (111). In this way, exigence marks a dilemma of some sort; this dilemma, by Bitzer’s explanation, is essential to rhetorical situation. Carolyn Miller explains in “Genre as Social Action,” that Bitzer defines "rhetorical situation as a 'complex of persons, events, objects, and relations' presenting an 'exigence' that can be allayed through the mediation of discourse" (152).Presented this way, the concept of exigence becomes a critical element of the rhetorical situation. Arthur B. Miller continues to draw from Bitzer to elaborate further on the role exigence plays in the rhetorical situation. He quotes Bitzer as saying "in any rhetorical situation there will be at least one controlling exigence which functions as the organizing principle: it specifies the audience to be addressed and the change to be effected" (111). It is in this way that the concept of exigence is most often taken up in the field of rhetoric and composition. It is not merely any sense of urgency, but specifically the sort of urgency can be, and perhaps demands to be, negotiated through discourse.
Limitations and Exigence
Arthur B. Miller points out that Bitzer’s position regarding exigence is deterministic because in his conceptualization: “(1) an exigence exists or occurs in a point of time, and (2) the nature of the exigence limits what one may do or say about it” (111). With this framework, emphasis is placed upon the means in which rhetors are limited by the exigence in terms of determining the timeline in which they should respond to the exigence as well as the means in which they should respond based upon the nature of the exigence itself. In “Rhetorical Exigence,” Arthur B. Miller attempts to expand the agency of the rhetor by acknowledging the role he or she plays in aiding to the “ultimate or perceived nature of the exigence” based upon his or her position as “perceiver” of the exigence (112).Exigence and Social Action
In the process of defining genre as “social action,” Carolyn Miller reconceptualizes exigence in a way that contrasts with Bitzer’s definition. To begin this process, she first addresses the contrasting approaches to rhetorical situation developed by Kenneth Burke and Bitzer. While both use the term “rhetorical situation” they construct the situation around differing terms. As Miller explains: “one crucial difference between the two is Burke’s use of motive and Bitzer’s of exigence as the focus of situation” (155). She explains that the use of these terms reflect emphasis being placed on “human action” in the case of Burke and “reaction” in the case of Bitzer. Her own definition of exigence fits more closely with Burke’s motive than Bitzer’s exigence, in part because she sees Bitzer’s “reaction” as being related only to “defect” and “danger.” Instead, she sees exigence as human action that is “located in the social world” (157).She defines exigence as “a form of social knowledge--a mutual construing of objects, events, interests, and purposes that not only links them but also makes them what they are: an objectified social need” (157). While Bitzner and Arthur B. Miller had emphasized the the obstacle and the rhetor’s perception of the obstacle in their definition of exigence, Carolyn Miller shifts attention to the social elements surrounding this obstacle and perception. She summarizes her conception of it nicely by saying “exigence is a set of particular social patterns and expectations that provides a socially objectified motive for addressing danger, ignorance, separateness" (158).
Exigence vs. Exigency
The term "exigency" is often used as interchangeably with "exigence." In fact, on Comppile.org, a search for the keyword "exigence" will collect no results whereas one for "exigency" will produce multiple. It should be noted, however, that in the context of the conceptualization of exigence presented above, exigence may be the most appropriate use of the term. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the suffix "-ence" indicates "a sense of action or process, either in addition to, or to the exclusion of, that of quality or state" whereas "-ency" conveys "only the sense of quality or state" ("-ency, suffix."). The latter suffix implies a concrete fixed state, in many cases, while the former suffix allows for a more dynamic or evolving characterization of a term. This usage seems to fit more appropriately with the conception of exigence as temporal and socially constructed.Keywords / Related Concepts
exigency, genre, limitations, rhetorical situation, social actionSources
"-ency, suffix." OED Online. Oxford University Press. June 2011. Web. 31 July 2011.Miller, Carolyn R. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (May 1984): 151-167.
Miller, Arthur B. "Rhetorical Exigence." Philosophy & Rhetoric 5.2 (Spring, 1972): 111-118.